Can somebody correct me if I've got this wrong,

Did the RFL supposedly tell Omar if the Bulls went into admin within 2 years of him taking over he would have to repay the Sky money the Bulls had received(50% what everybody else had received)

If that is correct,with that in mind,going back to what Whitcut came out with last week about the muppets at the RFL advising Mark Moore and his gang to take the club into admin

If that is the case that stinks to high heaven

Where are you Blake Solly

Another interesting point - But of course, the whole story is just plain Black and White as the trolls and Wakey contingent keep saying. All these other factors are irrelevant, and this is exactly how a professional sports organisation should be run!

Anyone who has followed this situation knows its far from black and white - thats half the problem, it bloody well should be!!
But to call anyone a troll and yet believe conjecture (lets be fair this whole situation is layer upon layer of that) is a little myopic, to say the least.
Worst case scenario, everything you want to be true isn't, best case scenario, everything you want to be true is - both are unlikely and these events cover neither the rfl, OKB, BB2014... in any kind of glory.
Something down the middle with lies and half truths on all sides however is, you'll never know half it, we'll never know half of it, and next season is just another season come what may.
Enjoy your rugby.

Yeah I get that, but I probably generalised the whole Wakefield support, when in fact, some of you have been quite helpful and neutral (Apologies for that!).

I agree but you also have to ask what does this scenario also make the trio look like. When the RFL allegedley suggested they stiff Khan, not make payment, secure ownership on the cheap and potentially escape a points deduction, did any of them say, 'actually that feels wrong'?

so the 6point deduction cannot possibly have been based on his not paying the creditors as it was handed down prior to him even making a bid never mind deciding whether or not any creditors would be paid.

You are correct to say that appeal is not based on creditors Marc green hasn't paid being paid, because the punishment literally cannot have been handed down because of creditors Marc Green hasn't paid not being paid.

If the basis of the appeal were "I paid the administrator more for the club than he agreed to accept from the other 3" then it might have a chance of some success. But as I understand it, that is not the case.

wow, cryptic.

What's that got to do with the points deduction appeal?

keep to the point peeps. the appeal is based on force majeure full stop. which means events outside the control of and/or unpredicted by a party. Negligence, eg I neglected to have enough cash in the bank to pay HRMC when due, is within the control of a party such as OKB. The only area I can see force majeure playing a part is the failure of the trio to fulfil their commitments in the deal struck over Christmas for change of ownership. Presumably that was out of OKB's control, especially if the RFL conspired with the trio. But that is all conjecture; anybody any alternative ideas on what the force majeure event(s) could be?

just to clarify, according to the administrator a winding up petition was actually issued by HMRC against OKB in mid January, which is an insolvency event in itself in the RFL rules, predating SSG/MGs administration order on the 31st January. the force majeure event(s) would therefore only apply to OKB being prevented from paying HMRC due to some external event outside OKB's control.

You don’t say … as opposed to all the other SL clubs, who presumably decline to take their full allocation of Sky money as the season goes on… ?


Eh? You’ll have to restate that question in a way that makes sense.


We knew the RFL would pay wages etc to keep the club ticking over, and if necessary the RFL/SLE (through “Neonrain”) would even have acquired the club albeit on a temporary basis, the obvious reason being the integrity of the comp as opposed to one club dropping out. Do you think this is an insight or something? It isn’t.

Is that a fact? Well, I think I had better get off to the optician after this post because I am looking at them and clearly hallucinating. They state:

Funny, that.

But you’re just stating the bleedin’ obvious, to the point of banality! And you are also skating over the fact that new owners, while not saving the old company (and so technically having no responsibility for its debts) nevertheless are expected by the RFL to offer to make payments despite tis total lack of obligation, and their proposals are part of the factors considered in deciding on sanctions.


You clearly don't! It states "[iAs part of the agreement and to meet the requirements of the RFL the purchasers are to make an offer to all trade creditors in the sum of 100p in the £[/i".

Oops!

So, come on, was the administrator lying? Well?


Absolute tosh and nonsense, as if BBNL chooses to pay anything to anyone, then it is not part of the affairs of OKB. At all. MG is not involved personally for the first thing. Secondly, the payment would be from BBNL not MG personally. Thirdly neither MG nor BBNL are in any way a party to the administration.

If for example Acme Pies were owed £1000 by OKB and BBNL want to continue to trade with Acme Pies then they might choose to make a payment equal to what Acme Pies were owed by OKB. This would not concern the administrator. He only distributes such funds (if any) remaining when he has got in THE DEBTS DUE TO OKB. Anything BBNL chooses to pay is clearly not in the category of debts due, because BBNL does not owe a penny of OKB’s debts. Which is kinda the whole point, as you yourself sort of pointed out, of MG Not buying and keeping alive OKB.

But, as you’re seemingly a lawyer, if BBNL did choose to make the £1K payment to keep Acme Pies sweet, please enlighten us all what offence they would have committed?

If I felt sorry for Acme Pies, and sent them a cheque for £1K, would I be in jail too?

When Bullbuilder and others collected money and paid effectively some cash in lieu of wages to those who were working for nothing, and should have been paid by the club, did that make each person who put coppers in the bucket a criminal as well?

Were all the buckets delivered to the administrator so he could divide them between all creditors? We're gonna need a bigger jail.

We all know that the RFL plainly announced sanctions against BB2014, based on BB2014’s business plans etc. They announced so. We all thought BB2014 had bought the assets only it turned out that they actually hadn’t. But the penalty was announced aimed at BB2014 and not at OKB. BB2014, it turns out, obtained a licence to run the club from the RFL for 1 month. So they were RUNNING the club and had a licence to do so and as such were a temporary member, even though it turns out they did not own the club, although they had signed a (conditional) contract to do so. The end result was the de facto 6 points disappeared off the League table whilst BB2014 was operating under a temporary licence and therefore undoubtedly it was BB2014 which was sanctioned. However the sale fell through, the licence expired, and the operation of the club thus reverted to OKB, which was being run by the administrator. He appealed against the decision in that capacity, i.e. as the person running OKB, and did so in order to preserve any right of appeal as this might enhance the price he could sell the assets for, but the sanction was clearly not applied to OKB.


No! OK owned the business until he sold the shares (if he did, that remains in litigation). The shares are of course not exactly worth a lot but the administrator RUNS the business and can SELL the business or parts but he never OWNS the business.


I don’t think anyone on here claims BBNL were proposing to make any or any substantial payments to OKB creditors, simply because I’d have thought it would have been public knowledge if they did, but the fact is you are speculating, as no announcement has been made one way or the other. It would be interesting, when comparing the comments made by RFL re debtors, and indeed the quote from the administrator's letter that referenced RFL requirements, to know why different requirements would apply now.


As you so often do, you have it the wrong way round. The administrator tried to say OK was only owed £400K. (Without speaking to OK). OK insisted on a creditors meeting. At that meeting OK produced documentation evidencing his financial input and the administrator eventually revised and admitted OK’s claim at the increased figure of £1m approx.

The struggle is exclusively yours. The concept of a company being a legal person is one you need to get your head around. Until you do you’ll just keep looking increasingly silly.


I have corrected so much of your misinformation that it seems pointless to repeat, as if you didn't bother to read the corrections first time, why would you now? Or maybe you just haven’t read it. But sticking just to this particular piece of your catalogue of misinformation, I am stating the facts, and you have it wrong. The position was summed up in a T&A report following the creditors meeting:

This is factually what happened. You are, as so often, simply wrong.

Adey has popped your balloon on the rest so I won't deal with that.

OK was not penalised in any way. He was able to purchase all the assets of BB Holdings, take over the Super League licence and have all the playing staff TUPE'd across to OK Bulls.

OK was fully aware of the level of central funding available prior to agreeing to establish OK Bulls as the new operating company. OK was also given Sky money allocated for the 2nd year of his tenure during his 1st year.

I think RW business history contextualises his statement. As anyone who reads it will deduce, he actually accepts no responsibility whatsoever for his actions. As an example, the debenture deal with SSG was completed just 4 days after OK resigned as a director. RW fails to reference this at all in his statement. Nor is there any reference to the huge losses incurred in running the pop concert at Odsal.